Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

(1) Whosoever publicly defames the President of the Federation, in a meeting or through the dissemination of written material (section 11 (3)) shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) In less serious cases the court in its discretion may mitigate the sentence (section 49 (2)) unless the conditions of section 188 are met.

(3) The penalty shall be imprisonment from six months to five years if the act constitutes an intentional defamation (section 187) or if the offender by the act intentionally supports efforts against the continued existence of the Federal

Republic of Germany or against its constitutional principles.

(4) The offence may only be prosecuted upon the authorisation of the President of the Federation.

In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (Â 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but Â115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of Â115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]

Technically speaking treating the King of Thailand as separate and above the rest of the population and all other people on the planet is the ultimate act of racism. A breed apart superior to all the rest of humanity, let's be honest the only idiots who run around with that attitude are psychopaths and narcissists. Of course generally it is only the psychopaths that try to punish a whole world of people who disagree with that principle. So it would seem the Thai ignoble royal family are psychopathic ass hats to the core and yeah for the subject heading.

That law isn't made by the king or royal family, it's made by the government (and in turn, people). He himself has said that he shouldn't be above criticism, and does parole people punished for that law.

If I'm remembering my history correctly, those laws were enacted under Tarkin's reign. The Thai monarchy was basically an afterthought early this century, until he leveraged his legacy position to legitimize military rules who in turn, legitimized him.

We're talking about a country where at an appointed time of day, everyone is required to turn to a picture of the king and sing. Do you really think that was voted up in a properly open legislature?

Precisely - he is, and knows he is, a figurehead, and he should not interfere in the democratic process. His only interventions have been calmly to ask the politicians to get their act together and stop behaving like spoiled children (free translation). It is one faction of politicians who build him up for their own purposes. He cannot interfere with the law without interfering with democracy. He can then pardon those convicted. It is one of the problems of a constitutional monarchy that things done in the monarch's name are actually totally, out of the control of the monarch. His function is roughly the same as the flag in the US - something to salute, and produce prominently on state occasions, but not as functional part of the legislations. These laws are roughly like the rules, which some consider laws, about respectful treatment of the Stars and Stripes.

That's simplification to the point of inaccuracy, in Australia's case at least. For a start the illegality is only when race is involved, you can quite freely come to Australia and say that the prime minister, the Queen, the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Oz) or any other politician is a fuckwit or something like that, and you'll find plenty of people who agree with you completely.

Secondly, and more importantly, it only becomes a criminal matter if you threaten violence or physically confro

Civil libertarians do and have objected to this Thai law, but objections to censorship of commentary on Islam are more widespread and vehement because censorship of discussion of Islam is a much greater problem: (a) Thailand is one small country; there are 51 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; (b) this law is enforced only within Thailand while Muslims attempt to enforce censorship everywhere; (c) the penalties in Thailand are relatively modest while Muslims call for the death of critics

There was a pilot program like 5 years ago where you could use an eye scan to speed through security (you had to signup for it and submit a scan before hand)... and that was never a general requirement, and it was discontinued.

Nope, sorry, they were doing that to alien visitors when I entered at Chicago last week on the way back from Japan. The Japanese government is doing it too. I got photographed at Heathrow a while back, but I'm not entirely sure what they were doing—it wasn't at immigration, so it seemed like some sort of airport security measure.

Thailand has beautiful islands, nice beaches, very friendly people and a ton of culture sites worth visiting. Yes, it also has sex-tourism. But at least in Bangkok, there are a lot more real massage parlours than sex-related ones. And getting a nice foot-massage halfway into a several hour shopping tour or visit to the night market (a must-see) is something they could well offer in the western world as well.

Snide remarks, dumbo, work a lot better when they're based on facts and not bullshit.

That needn't be the case - countries are quite capable of learning from each other, just as people are. Of course, capability and willingness aren't generally the same thing, but that's a choice and not an intrinsic property.

Except that's not the same thing.If the US had the same laws as tailand, anyone even remotely related to fox news would be shipped off to Guantanamo for the crap they make up about the president on a daily basis.

You can walk around america with a t-shirt that says "Obama sucks donkey balls!" all you want, you can't in tailand with a comparable shirt about the king.

If you came here and threatened the President, you would be in trouble.

But you could come here and call our President every name in the book and nothing bad would happen to you. You couldn't go to Thailand and say the same things about the king. We would probably buy you a drink; in Thailand you'd wind up in jail.

A holiday in Thailand is cheap, surrounded by polite Thai people (mainly because people own quite little and are happy to serve tourists with for a few dollars), generally quite safe, and has some beautiful islands.

A holiday in America starts by getting fingered by the TSA and then gets worse.

Thailand is a beautiful country and the people are really friendly there. I spent time there last year and I'm going back again, without even thinking when I would return. In fact I dated a few thais too, and the whole atmosphere is much more relaxed and they seem a lot more caring than women in my country. Not everyone go there for plain sex. In fact I'm only 22 and there wouldn't be any problem getting some action in my home country either. I just like living there a lot more.

It's better to be told in advance when you're going to be beaten, have property confiscated or simply be whisked off for saying the wrong thing. Wastes a lot less time than letting you mouth off until you're speaking loudly enough for others to hear.

In Canada there are a lot of people who come here and get citizenship far more easily than is done in the U.S. Then they go back to their home country and play the 'Canadian get out of jail free' card when the shit hits the fan. A few years ago when Israel invaded southern Lebanon, literally thousands of these 'Lebanese Canadians' screamed for help to get out of there. The Canadian government spent millions of dollars to evacuate these 'Canadians'. One woman even complained because she said the service was

efforts to defend the widely revered royal family from criticism have ramped up.

That, right there, is the critical point. From my visits to Thailand, I also got the impression that they really love their king.

As a democratic country, they can agree to not wanting to have criticism of the royal family, can they not? Remember that this is not the USA - there is no 1st amendment in Thailand. With that in mind - test yourself on how devoted you really are to the concept of democracy. If you think that there are limits to what a democracy can democratically decide to do - who gets to set those limits?

So, why the US - that have the 1st amendment, have only 2 major politic forces? Are you saying the majority of the americans agree with the bullshit from either side? Why do you see much more plurality on the governments of european countries? Free speech means nothing if you don't have free press (you don't), when you have censorship (you have, both on books and music), and when the politicians from either side defend corporate interests and not the citizens (you call it a legitimate profession - lobbyist - in EU is almost a criminal activity). So what's left? Either free speech is not required for a democracy, or the USA aren't a democracy. Pick your poison.

We have two political parties because our election system -- with its winner-take-all, no run-off rules -- naturally gravitates towards a two party system.

We have a free press. Just because you don't like what some branches of the press report doesn't mean they aren't free.

And you're claiming that books and music are censored? Have you even been to America, or do you base all your opinions off the crap you read on Slashdot? Your English makes it clear that you aren't an American, and based on how distorted your view is, I'd guess that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the country.

> In the US the press may be free from government interference but they are not free from corporate/monied interest interference.

Some commercial channels in the US press are subject to interference from corporate interests. However THE PRESS as a whole in the US is defined so broadly and it is so diverse that it is not possible for corporate interests to interfere with it in aggregate.

Pretty simple actually. Yelling fire in a crowded theater puts people in danger. What damage is done by making fun of a person?

That depends on whether you subscribe to a belief that puts the individual above the group, or in a belief that puts the group above the individual.

Americans tend to fall into the first category, while asians tend to fall into the second. So if you fall into the first, you will have to step out of your frame of reference for a moment to follow the argument:

The king is important to the group (the country). He unifies the Thai people through changes of government, coups, whatever happens - there is always the

I totally have an opinion. I think that jail time is way excessive, but knowing Thai society a little, a fine would be most appropriate.

My point is not that I support the legislation. My point is exposing the arrogance of outsiders insisting that whatever their particular culture thinks should be the way for every other culture as well.

I do believe there are moral absolutes - evolution isn't relative. Some things are better for physical survival, and some things

I think it's obvious that democracy isn't a proof against bad results, and anyone who says otherwise is usually politically grandstanding, or hiding something, or both.

The who gets to set the limits problem is pretty thorny though. Our (US) byzantine system of procedure for doing it seems better than a simple vote, or a simple law pass, or a single office or bureau getting to pick. But it has problems too.

I'm not so sure. The US system has multiple entities, all elected by the same group of people, making the laws, certifying the laws and then evaluating the legality of those laws. (Well, for those judges who are elected, it's the same group of voters.) This means there are no meaningful checks and balances, which ultimately means everything really is decided by a simple vote. It merely has the illusion of not being.

Now, Plato in his book on The Republic asserts that it is not procedure that fixes the flaws

Now, Plato in his book on The Republic asserts that it is not procedure that fixes the flaws in democracy but a highly educated populace.

It is not a coincidence that the quality of the government correlates strongly with its focus on education. The pisspot incompetent idiots we call politicians these days have no interest in an educated population, which would immediately see them for the parasitic charlatans they are. So they see to it that education remains at a base level useful for the economy, but not more.

Visionary politicians of decades past, who had no fear of their politics being critically examined because they actually had a plan and a clue, always had better education somewhere in their agenda.

As far as asking us to respect the king they love so much, keep in mind Americans have come to love their freedom of speech. That said: Fuck that king. I'll shit in his shoes. Bet he has a severe case of short dick syndrome. You can tell him I said it.

The King isn't responsible for the law or how it is used/abused by the government. He is a constitutional monarch and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.

The King has even stated that he is not above criticism and usually pardons people after they have been sentenced which is the first point in the process where he has any constitutional power that he can exercise.

The King likes to maintain the fiction that he has nothing to do with these laws, or with the army overthrowing the elected government whenever he feels like it. He might usually issue pardons, but he does not always do that. How is that "not being above criticism"? Sometimes he pardons someone after they've been harassed by the judicial system... and sometimes he doesn't. Better stay on his good side, eh?

All major laws cannot be enacted in Thailand without the explicit approval of the King. You can verify this by reading the 2007 Constitution. Publicly, Thai royalty has no influence on the laws. But you'll see otherwise if you read wikileaks.

The pardoning is only for those who have less than 3 years left of their sentence, and only once a year. Those accused of Lese Majeste typically have 5 to 20 year sentences. You're likely to spend several years in prison before being asked to sign a statement that you l

I question the "absolute" part. There has to be a sensible balance between individual rights and governmental rights. If liberty tops all other factors, the government can do nothing because there are no rights left to be had. There are only so many to go around. Government should not have excessive rights, it shouldn't even have 50% of the rights, but it can't have none at all. The same is true of any other collective entity (corporations, special interest groups, etc). They, too, should have rights but by giving them rights that can't be infringed, you have to take away the right to infringe on those rights from everyone else. It isn't zero-sum, but it IS bounded.

The problem in the US and other Western democracies is that the rights of entities other than individuals have become excessive. That is a natural property of the free market, since corporate rights are cheaper than individual rights and a "free market" implicitly gives 100% of the liberty to the corporate entities. You've got to have a system where rights to non-individuals are only given according to a demonstrated and legitimate need rather than a desire.

Thailand's system is improperly balanced, but it would be unfair to say it's any worse balanced than anyone else's. It's merely easier to see for most of us because we're on the outside of Thailand. Outsiders always spot flaws and defects with greater ease than insiders.

The various constitutions, seperation of powers, etc. etc. all do nothing to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but they are quite successful in preventing a tyranny of a temporary majority. In most western countries, being in charge of the place for one or two terms doesn't enable you to dismantle the system or oppress the minority of your choice. You can make steps into that direction, you can do a lot of harm, but you can't become a tyrant that easily anymore.We know that, because lots have tried. Berlus

I've never been to Thailand, so maybe they really are enamored with the king. However, when it's illegal to say otherwise, who won't say they love the king? This reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte's election, where voting consisted of checking yes or no to the question "Do you vote for Napoleon? Sign here."

Just to expand on this slightly: The Napoleon in your link is Napoleon III [wikipedia.org], the bumbling fool who fancied himself a military genius but pretty much lost all his major war adventures. He was nothing like Napoleon I [wikipedia.org], who lived 50 years earlier, and brought the ideals of the French revolution to all of Europe.

Sort of. One man cannot bring ideals to a continent literally. By successfully conquering Europe and imposing France's laws abroad for approximately one generation, the ancien regime throughout the continent was weakened and the middle classes everywhere were empowered.

Napoleon was only a general, but without his successful conquests the Revolutionary legacy would certainly not have lasted much beyond the Terror years and only in France. If the Bourbon Restoration had happened before 1800, it would have b

If you have elections but it's illegal to criticize the government or the heads of state, is that a democracy? You can vote, but I can't tell you why you should be voting? To me that is a joke election, like the one-party states like to hold to show their 99% approval rate.

The Bush-era advocacy of the harassment, arrest and even assassination of critics of the government meant that it was illegal for 8 years to criticize the government or the head of state. It's extremely dubious as to whether it's legal now. By your argument, the US ceased to be a democracy during that time and possibly into the present. Certainly the Occupy protesters in Oakland would argue that the US has ceased to be a democracy on those grounds.

The Bush-era advocacy of the harassment, arrest and even assassination of critics of the government meant that it was illegal for 8 years to criticize the government or the head of state.

How do you explain the Obama-era advocacy of arresting reporters for attempting to cover #OWS? Since those responsible for coordinating the federal assault on same report directly to the president, and he's not stopping them, these actions clearly have his blessing. Stop with the "Bush-era" nonsense, Obama is no different, no better.

Something CAN be a democracy and not have all the attributes one might consider ideal.

Athens was considered the birthplace of democracy even though they didn't have it; you had to be a male, racially privileged land owner in order to have a vote then just as you

As other people aready said, Democracy needs a minimum set of liberties to work properly. I just don't know if the liberty to remove those liberties should be granted. There are countries that have them, others that don't, and when a set of strong enough people decides they should go without Democracy, they get their wishes anyway, whatever the rules say. By the other way, that limitation could damage a country, but that is also hypotetical.

The King is a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth. He has no control over what laws are passed or how they are enforced. The only point he has any power to step in is after people have been sentenced when he routinely pardons them.

Here are a few things to think about from you post.1. Who decides what the "minimum set of liberties" is? Not being able to publicly criticize the ceremonial head of state does not make Thailand undemocratic. The Thai people could elect a government who could strike down the law. They have democratically chosen not to do that. What you think is the "minimum set of liberties" is you own personal opinion may be different that other people in the world.

Starting with "If" generally invalidated everything said after it. To equate English libel laws with the Thai lese majeste laws you must do the research. It is not up to the reader to find out whether or not the "if" is true. Add "if" to "might" and the statement is without weight.

If you divide up liberties rather than giving them all to one group, then no one group ends up with the liberty to remove the minimum set of liberty. The more you split the brain and require a consensus between those divisions that cannot influence each other in order to remove any liberty at all from anyone for any reason, the more likely it is that such power will be used sensibly. Consensus politics tends to fail when camps do have influence across partitions because then the consensus doesn't really exi

Thailand isn't particularly democratic. There are elections, and occasionally populist politicians win, but there's an entrenched, deeply conservative, power base that includes the King, the military, and some political parties. The fact that there's a coup or a threat of a coup whenever reform looks possible indicates they still have a lot of clout.

Well, first of all being a legal state limits a democracy. You can't just have a vote on who to exile/execute like in the good old days in ancient Athens. Even the majority has to respect the rights of an individual. And free speech should be a universal human right.

I'm committed to the concept of constitutional democracy, in which the ability of the voters to pass legislation that violates certain inalienable rights, is restricted. Ironically, those restrictions can be enacted democratically, if you outline them abstractly without cases of special pleading, and explain why (for example) the right to free speech protects everyone, and the downsides of it (e.g. you have to let people say that they don't like the king) can be addresses by... more free speech (e.g. the

Damn, this simply calls for bait and switch technique.1. Post a video of a cat hugging a kitten2. Collect a whole load of "likes"3. Switch the video for something different entirely4. Land a lot of people in jail for up to 15 years.

tl;dr: it's used as a political tool to silence/jail one's enemies--while the law has been around forever, prosecutions skyrocketed after the 2006 coup that ousted the prime minister as the different political parties fight for power. The king himself has publically stated that he doesn't support the lese majeste law, and no member of the royal family has ever filed a lese majeste charge.

I'd prefer 'after-elections'. 4 years or so after your term of office ends there is an election where people vote if they were satisfied with what you achieved in office. If they are not, you're sent to prison for low level positions, and executed for anything high up.

The grossest example for copyright being the Russian who was arrested for a DMCA violation by breaking Adobe copy protection whilst in Russia. On security, a pilot was arrested in the UK on the orders of the US after 9/11. They wanted him deported without the required deportation hearing and without knowing what he was charged with. The UK ultimately refused, gave him an extradition hearing, and he proved his total innocence of the charge. Had the UK not done that, he'd be in Gitmo to this day with no rights and no knowledge of even the charges made.

This doesn't make the UK particularly heroic - obeying its own laws should not be considered exceptional, it should be considered the norm. The UK was also involved in a number of renditions that DID violate UK law, just not that one.